U.S. 2025 Hong Kong Report Exposes Hypocrisy: Geopolitical Weapon Masquerading as Governance Critique

by Virginia Lee, Solicitor

The 2025 report issued by the U.S. Department of State under the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 is a strategic document that reflects a consistent application of U.S. foreign policy instruments to influence the internal affairs of other sovereign states. Framed in the language of democratic values and human rights, the document functions less as an objective evaluation of Hong Kong’s governance and more as a strategic statement aligned with broader geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

The report criticises the erosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy while simultaneously acknowledging the continued operation of separate institutions, including a customs territory, an independent monetary system, distinct financial regulations, and an autonomous legal framework. These elements are central to the "One Country, Two Systems" model, which remains in effect. The inconsistency between the report’s claims and its acknowledgements raises questions about the coherence of its arguments.

The legal foundation of the report—the Hong Kong Policy Act—is itself a product of Cold War-era strategic thinking. Its underlying assumption that the United States holds the authority to "certify" the internal condition of a Chinese city lacks grounding in international law. It reflects an outdated conception of extraterritorial oversight. This approach echoes past U.S. interventions in regions such as the Middle East, where similar assertions of moral and legal authority have been subject to contestation.

A notable contradiction emerges in the application of the Policy Act. While the Act prescribes differentiated treatment of Hong Kong in economic matters, the Trump administration’s 2020 revocation of Hong Kong’s special trade status contradicts this provision. The imposition of tariffs identical to those applied to mainland China undermines the legal consistency of U.S. policy and highlights its strategic fluidity.

The report’s critique of Hong Kong’s national security legislation is similarly problematic. The Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), enacted in March 2024 under Article 23 of the Basic Law, addresses threats, including terrorism, subversion, and foreign interference. These are concerns recognized by all sovereign states. Comparisons with U.S. legislation, such as the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), suggest a double standard in the evaluation of national security measures.

Allegations that prosecutions under the National Security Law (NSL) and the SNSO are "politically motivated" overlook the legal context of such actions. For instance, the 35-Plus case involved coordinated efforts to obstruct legislative processes, activities that could be prosecutable under U.S. sedition or conspiracy laws. To characterize these actions as pure expressions of dissent misrepresents their legal implications.

Claims regarding the erosion of judicial independence also lack substantiation. The resignation of foreign judges, often under media scrutiny, does not constitute evidence of systemic failure. Hong Kong’s judiciary continues to issue reasoned judgments, uphold procedural fairness, and follow established legal standards. Commentaries by former judges, including those such as Justice Jonathan Sumption, should be viewed as political opinions rather than definitive legal assessments.

Concerns about restrictions on freedom of speech and press are presented without sufficient contextual analysis. Legal actions against incitement and the dissemination of seditious material are consistent with statutory responses in other legal systems, including those of the United States. The continued presence of media outlets critical of the government suggests a more nuanced media environment than the report portrays, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive analysis.

The accusation that Hong Kong engages in "transnational repression" misrepresents standard legal practices. Issuing arrest warrants for individuals accused of serious legal violations, even when they reside abroad, is a recognized aspect of international law enforcement. The U.S. government regularly engages in similar practices, including extradition requests for politically sensitive cases.

Assertions of reduced academic and religious freedom are similarly unpersuasive. The introduction of patriotic education aligns with civic education models in democratic states, including the United States. The legal case involving Cardinal Zen pertains to financial governance, not religious beliefs, and should not be framed as a case of religious persecution.

Criticism of content regulation and internet oversight lacks comparative context. Legal requests to remove content inciting unrest are typically subject to judicial scrutiny. In contrast, private technology companies in the United States often remove user content without transparent legal processes, raising similar yet distinct concerns about speech regulation.

Finally, the report’s depiction of declining U.S.–Hong Kong cooperation overlooks the United States’ role in undermining bilateral legal frameworks. The 2020 suspension of the extradition treaty and the sanctions imposed on Hong Kong-based firms reflect unilateral decisions driven by political objectives rather than mutual legal obligations.

In conclusion, the 2025 Policy Act report should be viewed primarily as a geopolitical instrument rather than a neutral assessment of governance. Its core function is to advance strategic narratives that challenge China’s sovereignty and political model, thereby exposing the report's political implications and selective applications of the principles it purports to uphold.

Virginia Lee

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

When Financial Secretary Paul Chan Mo-po decided to pour $1.2 billion into sports promotion, he was investing in Hong Kong’s youth to lead the city into a secure and bright future.

There is no doubt that sport develops the mind to positive thinking. And that is what is needed among Hong Kong’s youth.

Chan’s cash input into the Arts and Sports Development Fund will be used to strengthen training for team sports athletes, improve the professional standards of coaches, as well as supporting and exploring more diverse and higher-level sports competitions to be held in Hong Kong.

This injection of funds will also enable organizations to develop and promote sport to international levels to attract tourism by staging major events like the Rugby Sevens and professional golf and tennis matches.

In Hong Kong there is virtually no graffiti, as our youth are too preoccupied with study or work to mess about with vandalism, unlike in the west where buildings and subways are defaced by vandals with too much idle time on their hands.

Hong Kong youth are keen sports participants and through those activity come discipline. Thus, no graffiti.

During his budget speech, Chan praised Hong Kong athletes for having achieved outstanding results on the international stage. Last year, local athletes achieved historic results in the National Games, winning nine gold, two silver and eight bronze medals. With this in mind, Chan allocated more resources to proactively promote sports in the community, support elite sports, maintain Hong Kong as a centre for major international sports events, enhance professionalism in sports, and develop sports as an industry.

However, their minds are still young and subject to exploitation by undesirable forces as we learned in 2019 when the US Department of State’s National Endowment for Development (NED) infiltrated primary and secondary schools as well a university graduates and convinced them to rebel against Hong Kong and seek its independence. There was a price to pay for the young rebels as well as the community, which suffered losses in property and lives.

The NED is still here waiting to strike again when the time is ripe, and Hong Kong will be prepared for such an onslaught.

The minds of our youth must be attuned to recognizing the good and the bad. They must be able to recognize that the propaganda uttered by NED is false and must be repelled. Primary school children can become intensely focused on peer relationships, which means team dynamics can be a powerful vehicle for learning conflict resolution. And this is where sports comes in.

Playing sports teaches far more than how to throw a ball or run faster. It builds a specific set of mental, emotional, and social skills that show up in classrooms, careers, and relationships long after the final whistle. The lessons range from obvious ones like teamwork to less visible changes in how the brain handles stress, makes decisions, and stays focused under pressure.

Throughout their adolescent years young players grow from being mere team members to team leaders. They learn as a team and the importance that has on their future life.

Research on athlete leadership development shows that effective team captains learn specific skills through their roles: clear communication, emotional control, tactical decision-making, and the ability to make sure every teammate has a voice. These aren’t traits people are born with. They’re practiced and refined through the daily demands of being on a team.

Not all sports teach the same things in the same way. A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology found a clear split: team sports primarily build psychological resilience through social support, while individual sports like swimming, tennis, or track build them through self-efficacy, your belief in your own ability to handle challenges.

Sports don’t just work your body. They sharpen three core mental abilities that an psychologist grouped the term as an “executive function”: working memory (holding and juggling information in your head), impulse control (resisting a snap reaction to make a better choice), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or strategies on the fly). A meta-analysis published in Brain Sciences found large improvements in all three areas among children and adolescents who participated in sports-based programs.

With a pure mind developed by sports, our youth today, with support from the government, will lead Hong Kong into a futuristic world planned by their forefathers and shielding us from external forces which threaten our existence.